Sunny Day

Exactly!

You did the right thing, even if it doesn't seem to have any effect right now. When the first punished case of cyberbullying on any platform is publicized and when it is observed that other interlocutors in the online environment take a stand, these cyberbullying activities will also become rare.

Abeunt studia in mores

I have the same information about collecting hateful comments as evidence, but also the fact that complaints are already being filed for some of them.

In fact, it is a fairly concrete text, well structured enough and showing the legal implications that irresponsible actions in the online environment can have. Moreover, in the future, this area will be better regulated because online violence has become a concern for all states. The rapidity of technological development has created a gap in the legislative system, but every year the legal provisions are completed to cover all online crimes.

I can't help but clarify when I see such errors. It was the least that needed to be said.

This should have been reported to the proper authorities.

That's a good question. I feel like we're living in apocalyptic times where moderators have disappeared.

The clock is ticking...

The fake aunt and the hyena vibe is unmistakable. But it's this stubbornness that kept the page alive.
By the way, I really like your new name.

In fact, the entertainment industry in S. Korea knew the truth, such a verdict was expected, so the multitude of offers is not a surprise.

@Nayonnaise The arguments presented in the analyzed text are grounded in a profound error of law and deliberately omit the fundamental mechanisms of the South Korean criminal procedure. The claim that the authorities' investigation did not resolve the underlying guilt or innocence is legally false and directly contradicted by the applicable legislation.
The allegations made in the public sphere concerned serious offenses involving abuse or illegal interactions with minors, matters imperatively regulated by the Child Welfare Act and the Korean Criminal Code.
Under the rules of criminal procedure, law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities have a statutory obligation to initiate an ex officio criminal investigation the moment there are reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the Child Welfare Act.
The fact that the Judicial Police and the Prosecution Service never opened an investigation against actor Kim Soo-hyun constitutes absolute legal proof that the suspicions completely lacked factual substance or the essential elements of a criminal offense.
Also, your text erroneously claims that the investigation only targeted the fabrication of evidence, rather than the truth of the alleged relationship.
In reality, the moment the actor filed a criminal complaint for defamation, the procedural framework shifted radically. Pursuant to Article 307, Paragraph 2 and Article 309, Paragraph 2 of the Korean Criminal Code (concerning defamation via the dissemination of false facts to damage reputation), the primary subject of proof is the false nature of the statements published by the YouTuber, and made by the fake aunt and the family with their lawyer.
In order for investigative bodies to formally bring a charge of defamation via false information, the law requires them to verify and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the underlying claim made by the defendant did not exist in reality. Consequently, the conclusion of the investigation represents a total exoneration of the actor and an official, legal determination that the allegations were false.
The minimalist text attempts to downplay the entire procedure as a mere "suspicious police investigation." This framing blatantly contradicts Article 196 of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which establishes the hierarchical relationship and the judicial control of legality. The judicial police conduct their investigations under the strict coordination and direction of the Prosecution. The case did not stop at a simple police finding; it was formally validated by a prosecutor, who adopted the forensic evidence (including the manipulation of KakaoTalk messages and audio tampering using AI technology).
Furthermore, the deprivation of liberty of YouTuber Kim Se-ui was executed based on a pre-trial arrest warrant issued by a Judge of the competent Court. In South Korean law, issuing an arrest warrant for defamation is a measure of extreme severity. The Court grants such a warrant only if the evidence of the accused's guilt and the certainty of the false nature of their calumnies are indisputable. The fact that the judge dismissed the appeal filed by the YouTuber against the warrant confirms that the Court fully validated the legal reality: the allegations against the actor were a criminal fabrication.
Contrary to the insinuations in the text, which exploit the absence of a final judgment on the merits (a natural timeline gap in any legal system) to artificially sustain suspicion, the severance of the case (disjunction) ordered by the Prosecution carries a precise legal meaning. The severance was an expedited procedural measure driven by the severity of the disinformation and the social danger of the criminal act. The state isolated the clear, proven acts of disinformation to ensure the immediate detention and arrest of the offender, thereby protecting the integrity of the legal order.
From a strictly legal standpoint, the total absence of any ex officio investigation under the Child Welfare Act against Kim Soo-hyun, combined with the pre-trial detention of the accuser for violating Articles 307/309 of the Criminal Code (a measure directed by the Prosecution, sanctioned by the Court, and upheld on Appeal), demonstrates that the justice system has already established with authority the entirely false and fabricated nature of the underlying allegations.
Presenting a half-truth fundamentally entails a half-lie. Terefore, your theory becomes invalid as it completely omits the essential facts of the case.

From the beginning, it was clear that from a legal point of view, KSH could not lose. Other facts will come to light, which I hope will be made public, so that it can be established that the parents of the deceased were constantly exploiters of their daughter.

I really wait for fake auntie's verdict and then we can see if the hyena has lost his last tooth.

Dint*'s humorous lawsuit for damages
At the third hearing held on the 3rd July, the 22nd Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court confirmed the plaintiff, regarding the calculation of damages, plans for proof, and additional positions on the grounds for contract termination.
Dint* has not decided on what to base its claim for damages, on the breach of the obligation to preserve dignity (a clause in the contract) or on “serious reasons that make it difficult to perform the contract”. The difficulty is serious because if it remains on the breach of the obligation to preserve dignity, its claim will probably be rejected, since it is already obvious that all the public accusations made by Garo0&comp were false. If it relies on the impossibility of continuing the contract, it faces the task of directly proving the “actual amount of damages” suffered. Therefore, Dinto’s lawyer stated that he intends to present a written document showing the public perception at the time of the contract termination, the purpose of the model advertising contract and the impact on the advertising film and corporate image.
Furthermore, regarding Dint*’s claim of de facto "strict liability" on the part of Kim Soo-hyun’s side citing another clause, the court dismissed it, stating, "Since that clause also presupposes a clear cause of fault attributable to one party, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff’s claim."
Regarding the proof of damages, Kim Soo-hyun's side stated that they had already submitted the defendant's position in writing at the previous hearing in response to the court's request for clarification, and requested the plaintiff's side, which has not yet specified whether damages occurred and the basis for calculating the amount, to submit it promptly.
Kim Soo-hyun’s lawyers prepared a lot of documents to prove the biggest commercial farces lawsuit. Dint* didn't destroy the promotional displays. They kept the backbone of the actor's campaign intact on Japanese shelves and simply pasted a sticker of a new model over Kim Soo-hyun's face. And that’s not all, they continue to sell the products with his image and it’s hard to believe that they can send to the court evidence of the damages until September 4.
The next hearing date has been set for September 18 at 10:20 a.m.
https://www.frame-less.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=3782
https://asiaon.site/a-maquiagem-da-vitimizacao-da-dinto/

The latest reports in the prosecutors' indictment show that Garo0 intentionally committed the crimes, fabricating evidence to make the public believe there was a relationship between KSH and the deceased when she was a minor. Forensic analysis determined that the submitted audio recording is a fake, and the two people in the recording never actually had a conversation. Prosecutors also added a new charge to the indictment: blackmail.
For this reason, prosecutors sent him to court in custody, and his first appearance was scheduled for July 24. At Kim Se-ui's request, the hearing was postponed to August, most likely because he hired a new lawyer who needs time to study the file. In reality, however, the initial period he can be held in custody is 2 months. Prosecutors can request an extension of the arrest warrant by another 2 months, at most twice, meaning the maximum period he can spend in custody is 6 months.
In August, the first two months expire, and prosecutors must request an extension of the pre-trial detention. Apparently, Gasey*n wants to be released and hopes that an extension will not be requested or granted, most likely to prepare his defense in his own way, resorting to the same tricks he used in the past. It remains to be seen whether this is his strategy. In the meantime, the criminal case concerning the other suspects should move forward, because as I wrote before, an organized criminal group has been formed.
https://www.topstarnews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=16124907#_PA
https://n.news.naver.com/article/079/0004164829?sid=102
https://www.frame-less.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=3782

I have to agree with you!

Why doesn't the recording presented by Garo0 and the deceased's family matter, even though Gaseyon claims it hasn't been proven to have been made with AI?
A verbal statement made during a telephone conversation cannot, by itself, ordinarily serve as the sole basis for a criminal conviction. The South Korean criminal justice system applies the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and imposes strict requirements concerning the admissibility and evaluation of evidence, including audio recordings.
Even where a recording has been lawfully made by a participant in the conversation, an isolated verbal statement is generally not regarded as sufficient proof of criminal liability. Courts typically require that such statements be corroborated by additional evidence, such as electronic communications, financial records, location data, witness testimony, or other independent material evidence.
Accordingly, in the absence of corroborating evidence, a person would not normally be charged or convicted solely on the basis of a statement contained in a telephone recording. The presumption of innocence requires the prosecution to establish guilt through reliable and persuasive evidence, and an uncorroborated statement—particularly where the speaker is deceased and cannot be cross-examined—may carry limited evidentiary weight.
Without additional supporting evidence, such as documents, messages, financial transactions, forensic evidence, or witness testimony, a court is not required to accept as true the factual assertions made by the deceased speaker in the recording. An audio recording may demonstrate that specific words were spoken by a particular individual at a particular time, but it does not, by itself, establish the truth of the matters asserted. The speaker may have been mistaken, exaggerating, intentionally deceptive, or relying on inaccurate information.
Where a recording is made by a participant in the conversation, its creation is generally lawful under South Korean law. However, separate legal issues may arise if the recording is publicly disseminated, including through the media or social networking platforms, rather than being provided exclusively to investigative authorities. Depending on the circumstances, such dissemination may expose the individual to potential civil or criminal liability, including claims related to defamation.
As a practical matter, investigators and prosecutors may treat such a recording as a lead or starting point for an investigation. Nevertheless, if no independent evidence is obtained to substantiate the allegations contained in the recording, the recording alone would generally be unlikely to satisfy the evidentiary threshold required for a criminal conviction.

What about Ham So Won? She is married Chinese TV personality Qu Jiabao, who is 20 years younger than her.

If Kim Sa Ron wrote him a letter when he was in the military, are you saying that incriminates KSH? What is the logic?